Sorry for the following vagueness, but I'm trying to keep this spoiler-free.

Re: the "Iron Man" bit. I agree it was probably a mistake. I can also see exactly why the screenwriter (Drew Goddard) put it in, because in the book, the protagonist is completely passive in a critical moment, and that would have grated hard against his writing instincts. (writer hat on) I'd suggest keeping the joke about him doing it, but having Lewis do what she suggested. You could frame the subtext right there as "there's a point when you've done all you can and you need help." This idea was threaded through the film already, so it wouldn't be wandering off the reservation to add one more instance for punctuation. Plus teamwork!

On the other hand, I loved the actual ending, which also wasn't in the book. Weir's ending was uber-disciplined, but lacked the closure the audience would want. Goddard, I believe to his credit, gave it to them.

Watched just now, great movie. Only thing made me "meh" is a part about bomb, closing can of Liquid oxygen with tight cap. That bottle would have explode in few minutes just from pressure buildup and gas expansion. I know as working with liquid nitrogen commonly, and was making "bombs" with cocacola bottles filled with LN2 and cap on

On the other hand, I loved the actual ending, which also wasn't in the book. Weir's ending was uber-disciplined, but lacked the closure the audience would want. Goddard, I believe to his credit, gave it to them.

As the story unfolds we find that although the crew were only to be on Mars for 30 Mars days, the ascent rocket had been there several years waiting for them.

Yes, that's actually part of the plan for several real viable Mars missions, like Mars Direct for example.But yes, it's a plot hole with the whole wind thing. Weir knew that but couldn't figure out a better way to do it.

J. Michael Straczynski puts it best: The plot needed it. I'm OK with it, as long as the story is good.

And let's be honest here, Hollywood making good movies on new stories is a rare beast these days.

Finally saw it today. Very good movie in all I thought.Shame a few bits were left out, but understandable for time.It felt like the last third of the book happened in the last fifth of the movie.There's more I could say but not without a spoiler warning...

Anyone seen the Internet chatter showing people who think the movie is based on a true story?Ok, the sampled people are probably a little simple but I think it says a lot about the production of the movie (and narrative of the book) that it seems believable enough to some to be seen as a true event. (Or is a damning insight into the stupidity of humanity)

I was also hesitant about Damon in the starring role, nothing against him but he wasn't the Watney I'd pictured when reading the book either. Maybe too sticky or not nerdy enough, not sure. However I think it worked.I liked Pena as Martinez, that's who I thought of when I read the book. Mainly because of his role on The Shield. (Ex-military, cheeky chap etc.)

I watched it tonight, I think it was good. Now I will have to read the book.

As others have said, there were some "hollywood physics" but it was mostly visual things so I assume it wasn't exactly like that in the book (except the storm maybe). (And I can understand the "need" to make things more visually interesting/dramatic.)

Love the way he's just cavalier about handling hydrazine inside the hab without any protective clothing - that stuff will get you seven different kinds of dead well before you've extracted enough hydrogen to start a fire/explosion from the hydrogen.

I winced a bit at the hydrazine setup, isn't that stuff extremely toxic? I think I would have taken more precautions, but I suppose it could be made to work and Watney didn't have much to loose.

I liked the book and movie. Refreshing to have content not be completely dumbed down for theatrical release. Thought Matt Damon and Ridley Scott (and countless others) did the source material justice, which is about as good of compliment I can give when book is made into a movie.

I was under strict instructions from the better half not to open my mouth until the credits finished.

As Margaret P would say, "What do you think David?"David S: "Most movies require you to suspend your disbelief to come along for the ride, I'm glad to say that 'The Martian' did not require a great suspension of disbelief."(Most Aussies should get this reference).

From a technical/science perspective, the move was WAY better than most of what comes out of Hollywood. But, that level of performance makes the few gaffs I noticed stand out more in relief.

NOTE: Spoiler-ish stuff below.

1) The suit heads up display showed pressure in PSI. NASA don't use no stinkin' Imperial units! Although I can kind of understand this was to help the "general" audience grok "pressure" at a glance, (Kilo)Pascals probably aren't as recognizable as PSI,but I could live with atmospheres or Bar, which would probably be recognizable.

2) The hex dump we see when the text file is opened up is definitely not ASCII. I immediately noticed numbers below 0x20 (there was a 1A or 1E or something like that) and above 0x7F (pretty sure that was a bunch of AA or similar). I actually wondered for a second if they were changing this bit from what was in the book.

3) VERY SPOILER: The "Iron Man" scene felt weird. He cuts one glove, and is suddenly out of control. But later seems to be steering himself with both hands... When/how did he cut the other one while steering himself with a cut glove?

EDIT: Almost forgot, the hydrazine. He takes way more precautions with it in the book. I don't think it was really necessary to dumb that one down.

Speaking of pressure, they could reduce pressure considerably to save on vehicle, suit and habitat structure.

Space suits usually use around 0.3 atm. Although the ISS uses SLP, so they probably want to keep things safer in the larger structures (dilution with N2 or Ar provides some cooling that keeps fire hazard lower than reduced pressure O2 -- let alone full pressure O2).

Speaking of structures, the bag-over-burst-hatch depiction only inflated to about, what, a foot of water column, if that? (Of course, it would've been easiest on set to just get a big powerful fan and point that at the patch.) That ~1.5m hatch would've had to actually bear about 5.4 tonnes of force*, minimum, and more likely 10-15. (Any guesses how much duct tape would be required? )

(*That is, tonne-force, i.e. 1000 kgf, as in, the accepted figure on Earth. Dang, kgf etc. would all be different units, following their colloquial definitions, on Mars, or the Moon.)

Curious how the book handled it; I expect it was simplified for the movie.

I just watched it yesterday and I must say that although I was having very good time for 2+ hours in the cinema I feel that praising this movie for being "scientific" or "plausible" is a bit too much. Maybe Dave's review set my expectations a bit too high but I really couldn't tell which one of the scenes in the ending sequence Dave found most ridiculous (and I would include even more as candidates if I didn't know that I was to expect it at the end). I guess, for me the "density" of "holywood moments" in the movie was a bit too high. I think I would like reading the book more.

Still, I would recommend this movie to almost everyone. But don't despair if you didn't get to watch it on the big screen. Visuals, although great, are not the main reason to see it.

I just watched it yesterday and I must say that although I was having very good time for 2+ hours in the cinema I feel that praising this movie for being "scientific" or "plausible" is a bit too much.

Apart from the dust storm, the rest is pretty plausible, and that's why the book has gained the popularity it has. The other major point of the movie is that is showcases science, and that's essentially the main point, most hollywood movies don't attempt that. Still problems of course, but an order of magnitude more plausible than most hollywood space fluff.

Bingo! First one to guess it.Yes, I groaned and shook my head at that line. The part with the cross is in the book, but I felt like they changed a line for the movie just to appease the religious. (I have to watch it again to be sure I heard it correctly)In a movie that showcased science, I found it disappointing and a cop-out.And from my perspective, a missed opportunity to ram home the point of the silliness of religion and the triumph of science over it, which I think was Weir's subtle intention in the book with that part (he's agnostic/defacto atheist).

Still problems of course, but an order of magnitude more plausible than most hollywood space fluff.

Yeah, but that's probably why I wasn't impressed as much as many other people. I was already expecting much more from it than from any other hollywood movie. I had somewhat similiar "problem" with Interstellar. Too much hype.